What are the pros and cons of electronically monitoring inhaler use in asthma? A multistakeholder perspective

Howard, Sam; Lang, Alexandra. R.; Sharples, Sarah; Shaw, Dominick E.

Abstract

Introduction

Electronic monitoring devices (EMDs) are the optimal method for collecting objective data on inhaler use in asthma. Recent research has investigated the attitudes of patients with asthma towards these devices. However, no research to date has formally considered the opinions of stakeholders and decision-makers in asthma care. These individuals have important clinical requirements that need to be taken into account if EMDs are to be successfully provisioned, making collecting their opinions on the key barriers facing these devices a valuable process.

Methods

Three rounds of surveys in a Delphi format were used to assess the most important pros and cons of EMDs for asthma care in a sample of 31 stakeholders which included healthcare professionals and members of clinical commissioning groups.

Results

The respondents identified 29 pros and 32 cons. Pros that were rated as most important included new visual evidence to aid clinical discussions with a patient and an increase in patient involvement and motivation. The cons that were rated as most important included a need for more clinical evidence of the effectiveness of EMDs, as well as better clarity over who has responsibilities in managing, interpreting and discussing data with a patient.

Conclusions

The research provides a guide for EMD developers by highlighting where these devices may provide the most benefit as well as prioritising the key issues that need addressing if they are to be used effectively in everyday asthma care.

Citation

Howard, S., Lang, A. R., Sharples, S., & Shaw, D. E. (in press). What are the pros and cons of electronically monitoring inhaler use in asthma? A multistakeholder perspective. BMJ Open Respiratory Research, 3(1), Article e000159. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2016-000159

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Acceptance Date: Nov 5, 2016
• Online Publication Date: Nov 29, 2016
• Deposit Date: Jan 13, 2017
• Publicly Available Date: Jan 13, 2017
• Journal: BMJ Open Respiratory Research
• Electronic ISSN: 2052-4439
• Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 3
• Issue: 1
• Article Number: e000159
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2016-000159
• Public URL: https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/826615
• Publisher URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2016-000159
• Contract Date: Jan 13, 2017